Rape does not justify abortion

[Quantum Windbag]

Have you provided evidence to suggest that a fetus is a person? Or have you just said that since it is human, it then must be a person?

If so, then a corpse in the ground for 100 years must also be a person.

Funny thing, my argument is that a fetus is alive, not that it is a person. You are the one hung up on the person thing, and even brought up the argument that fetuses are not legally defined as persons. I pointed out that corporations are legal persons and asked you what your point is. I am still waiting for the answer to that.

What makes a pile of bones a person, or even human?

So you believe that because it is alive, it deserves more rights than the woman?

No, I believe that a child has the exact same right to live as I, or anyone else, does. I do not think my right to privacy trumps your right to life.

I know, that makes me weird, but I can live with it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

Ever notice how Republicans want to protect the fetus. But lose interest shortly after birth. And never care about the mother. It's so strange.

Ever notice how I am not a Republican?

Didn't think so.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

We all have a right to life, even if you don't believe that rights come from the government the right to life is written into the constitution.

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

You also have to consider the rights of the mother.
She's been violated by some bastard but some would ask her to continue that violation for a minimum of the following 9 months and probably a lot longer.

The woman had no say in her fate and that's easily reason enough for her to have total say in the aftermath.

OK, lets consider the rights of the mother. Which right does a mother have that trumps the right of anyone else to live?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If the purpose of government is to protect the rights of those who cannot defend themselves because no one is less capable of defending their rights than an unborn child. Rape is a horrific crime, we all know that, but it does not justify anyone taking away the rights of an innocent person.

The 5th Amendment mandates due process in the context of a potentially punitive action taken by a jurisdiction pursuant to loss of liberty or life; the 5th Amendment does not apply the due process requirement to private entities, including private citizens. As a private citizen, therefore, a woman is free to seek an abortion for whatever purpose, free from government interference, free from a requirement to ‘justify’ her actions as a private citizen protected by the right to privacy.

I did not quote the 5th Amendment because it applies to abortions, I quoted it to cut off the idiots who think rights come from a piece of paper. The constitution specifically recognizes the right to life.

 

[Cowman]

An embryo or a fetus is not a person.

Just what I was going to say. That's all that needs to be said.

 

[OODA_Loop]

My opinion stands, that I don't agree with a rape victim having to bare the child of her rape perpetrator, but rather that she upon the very night or day of the rape, and within no more than a few hours afterwards, recieve a DNC immediately, as so a child wouldnot develope within her womb at all, especially out of an horrific situation as rape is or could be, and this goes for unwanted incest/rape as well. However if the woman wants to give an unwanted pregnancy a chance to create a baby out of a (highly unlikely she would), horrific situation, then that would be her choice as well.

Wait wut ?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Constitution does not recognize the right to life of a fetus.

 

[Katzndogz]

Likely because children were considered such a benefit that only the insane would murder them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Fetuses are not children.

Abortion is not sanity.

Your opinion certainly does not make abortion murder.

katz, words have meaning. Please use them correctly.

 

[Katzndogz]

When the Constitution was written children were so necessary that convenience abortions were few, very far between and the women considered insane and confined. Confined, as in confinement. Or are you unfamiliar with the term confinement and how it was used in the 18th century?

Fetuses are not children, but that is a modern concept. In the 18th century a man that deliberately caused a miscarriage was hanged just as if he killed a four year old. No doctor would perform an abortion, that took a woman who lived in the forest and gathered up roots, berries, plants and animals to use to make poisons. You know, a witch. If caught, the poisoner was executed, just as we execute poisoners today.

If you believe that the reason protection of the fetus isn't in the Constitution is because the people of the time intended to preserve the right to murder one's offspring you can't help but be wrong. Likely it was because they couldn't imagine someone who wanted to murder their offspring.

If a man rapes a pregnant woman who wanted to have the baby and causes her to lose that baby has he not committed a crime? What's the crime? The crime is murder. How could this man be charged with the attempted murder of an unborn child?

Man Beats Pregnant Ex-Girlfriend Trying To Kill The Baby | Women's Self Defense Federation

How was this man charged in the murder of an unborn child?

Alleged impaired driver charged in crash that killed woman's unborn baby | abc13.com

Should we have one set of laws for one and another for someone else? If the drunk driver who killed the fetus proved that the woman was on her way to have an abortion is he still guilty of murder?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where is the proof that abortions "were few" before and after 1800.

Give us the law in England and the USA that those who caused miscarriages were hanged.

"Murder" as you use it is only your opinion, not a term in law for the events that we are discussing.

"Murder" for causing an abortion has to be created by statute and requires criminal action, such as beating a pregnant woman. Having a legal abortion is thus not murder.

I suggest very firmly that you study much more before commenting again.

 

[HUGGY]

When the Constitution was written children were so necessary that convenience abortions were few, very far between and the women considered insane and confined. Confined, as in confinement. Or are you unfamiliar with the term confinement and how it was used in the 18th century?

Fetuses are not children, but that is a modern concept. In the 18th century a man that deliberately caused a miscarriage was hanged just as if he killed a four year old. No doctor would perform an abortion, that took a woman who lived in the forest and gathered up roots, berries, plants and animals to use to make poisons. You know, a witch. If caught, the poisoner was executed, just as we execute poisoners today.

If you believe that the reason protection of the fetus isn't in the Constitution is because the people of the time intended to preserve the right to murder one's offspring you can't help but be wrong. Likely it was because they couldn't imagine someone who wanted to murder their offspring.

If a man rapes a pregnant woman who wanted to have the baby and causes her to lose that baby has he not committed a crime? What's the crime? The crime is murder. How could this man be charged with the attempted murder of an unborn child?

Man Beats Pregnant Ex-Girlfriend Trying To Kill The Baby | Women's Self Defense Federation

How was this man charged in the murder of an unborn child?

Alleged impaired driver charged in crash that killed woman's unborn baby | abc13.com

Should we have one set of laws for one and another for someone else? If the drunk driver who killed the fetus proved that the woman was on her way to have an abortion is he still guilty of murder?

When the Constitution was written children were so necessary that convenience abortions were few

When the constitution was written women couldn't vote. They were essentially the property of men. Unfortunately some men have never gotten the memo.

 

[squeeze berry]

Does one evil justify another? I don't consider abortion evil but what if the child is born because abortions are illegal thanks to republicans? Does the evil of not providing for the child with free health care and other welfare justify forcing a woman to carry to full term? Republicans want to cut this type assistance and none that I know of take any responsibility for the child after birth. Remember a woman who is raped did not choose to have a child and her circumstances may not allow it financially, emotionally, etc. So the option or choice is always hers. She is not an inhuman incubator!

Swing State Polls as of 8/22/12​

Florida Obama 49 Romney 46
Ohio 50 44
Virginia 50 45
Colorado 49 46
Nevada 49 45
Wisconsin 50 45
MI 44 47
PA 48 42​

when do I get my free healthcare?

 

[Katzndogz]

Where is the proof that abortions "were few" before and after 1800.

Give us the law in England and the USA that those who caused miscarriages were hanged.

"Murder" as you use it is only your opinion, not a term in law for the events that we are discussing.

"Murder" for causing an abortion has to be created by statute and requires criminal action, such as beating a pregnant woman. Having a legal abortion is thus not murder.

I suggest very firmly that you study much more before commenting again.

Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion History

Prior to the 1800's, most states practiced some variation of English Common Law which generally lacked explicit codification. Add to this the fact that solid statistics about abortion and/or unwed pregnancy simply do not exist for the time period, and you begin to see why it is so difficult to compile an accurate history of abortion in early America. Individual accounts, from journals, periodicals or court records, are all we can rely on for acquiring the anecdotal evidence necessary to make some conclusions.

The first known conviction for the "intention to abort" was handed down in Maryland in the year 1652.1 Four years later, also in Maryland, a woman was arrested for murder after procuring an abortion, but the case was thrown out when she married the only witness, who then refused to testify.2 A 1710 Virginia law made it a capital crime to conceal a pregnancy and then be found with a dead baby.3 Likewise, a 1719 Delaware law made anyone who counseled abortion or infanticide an accessory to murder.4 Olasky notes that at this point in history, "infanticide was probably the most frequent way of killing unwanted, illegitimate children."5 "Abortifacients were known and used in early America," but since using them "was like playing Russian roulette with three bullets in the chambers."6

While individual state laws were varied and didn't always have specific legislation for abortion and/or infanticide, those that did all shared a common problem. It was almost impossible to produce the evidence necessary to convict. Pregnancy was hard to confirm, there was almost never a corpse or witness, and there was always a great deal of jury sympathy for desperate and abandoned women. Nevertheless, there were plenty of non-legislative factors working against the widespread use of abortion and infanticide. One of the chief of these factors was the existing social pressure that expected a man to "act honorably" and propose marriage if he impregnated a woman out of wedlock. "In one Massachusetts county during the 1760's, over 80 percent of non-maritally conceived births were legitimated by the marriage of their parents, and counties in other colonies had similar records... Where fathers resolutely refused marriage, courts in Virginia and other colonies ordered payment. Thus economic desperation was unlikely to drive most unmarried, pregnant women to infanticide or abortion.

The scientific community, from the 1600's all the way through to the 1800's, believed that babies actually existed before conception, in either the sperm or the egg. Such thinking, faulty though it was, was another anti-abortion influence. Finally, the very difficulty of confirming pregnancy before quickening, made early abortions almost impossible, and late term abortions ruined marriage prospects and were extremely dangerous. "With physical, social, theological and 'scientific' reasons all making abortion unacceptable, only those in extreme duress or with contempt for existing standards would resort to it."

 

[Katzndogz]

Does one evil justify another? I don't consider abortion evil but what if the child is born because abortions are illegal thanks to republicans? Does the evil of not providing for the child with free health care and other welfare justify forcing a woman to carry to full term? Republicans want to cut this type assistance and none that I know of take any responsibility for the child after birth. Remember a woman who is raped did not choose to have a child and her circumstances may not allow it financially, emotionally, etc. So the option or choice is always hers. She is not an inhuman incubator!

Swing State Polls as of 8/22/12​

Florida Obama 49 Romney 46
Ohio 50 44
Virginia 50 45
Colorado 49 46
Nevada 49 45
Wisconsin 50 45
MI 44 47
PA 48 42​

when do I get my free healthcare?

What responsibility does anyone have to the children of someone else? None that I can think of. If the mothers do not want that responsibilty it's easy to do. Just give the child up for adoption.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Katzndogz gives us some sources and evidence, some of it which seems good.

However, opinionated statements from an anti-aborition homer like "On the one hand, abortion has been used with alarming frequency for much of the nation's history. On the other hand, though abortion has long been popular on the fringes of society, it was not until recently that it began to enjoy anything like "mainstream" support" are indeed problematic. In fact, abortion has always been practiced in American society from bottom to top, so the "mainstream" comment seems unbalanced.

I encourage all to read Katz's source, but to read it carefully with recognition that the site is not objective but rather with an opinionated anti-abortion perspective.

 

[Katzndogz]

Historically abortion has never been a popular choice, until now. Even when practiced, it was considered repugnant, until now.

Have times changed people so much that abortion is honored, respected, desired? We will see because it is all democrats have left.

 

[Foxfyre]

To the 'a fetus is not a person' argument, I would ask those holding that conviction to show me a single soul who was not first a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, etc. Show me how that is not an essential stage of a human life. And then explain how killing it is not ending a human life.

And don't give me the 'when the fetus is viable' argument. A human life is not 'viable' and continues to require assistane from more mature human for quite a long time following full term and birth.

Having said that, I am not about to judge a woman who has a terrible decision to make if she becomes pregnant as a result of rape or incest. I will leave that to her, and her moral center to decide and won't second guess her decision. But that decision can be made early on.

My personal conviction is that the best solution is to go with the eloquent language and intent of Roe v Wade:

First trimester: the matter is between the woman, her conscience, and her doctor.

Second trimester: the state now has some interest in the developing baby and reasonable cause must be shown before abortion is legal.

Third trimester: Except when the life of the mother is in imminent danger, a court order should be necessary for a legal abortion of a live fetus and that should be based on overwhelming evidence that the mother's welfare is in jeopardy or the baby has no chance for quality of life.

Will this continue the practice of aborting tens of thousands of babies out of selfishness or convenience? Yes. The only remedy for that is to reteach the principles of sanctity of life and appreciation for that unborn child as a person who deserves a chance to live so that abortion is no longer so socially acceptable as a birth control device.

 

[Katzndogz]

When Roe was passed, I had a conversation about it with a woman whose opinion I respected. A wise and respected Judge. While I was for Roe as a reasonable compromise for competing rights she saw it differently As she said, once it becomes legal to abort a baby before it's born, it will be legal to abort it while it's being born. Then it will be legal after it's born. If it is legal to abort their baby, it will be legal to abort yours. I laughed at her. That was the silliest thing I ever heard. But that was before partial birth abortion and post birth abortion. Before abortion started being a defense to murder.

Her point was we should not be passing laws without looking at where those laws will eventually end up. It took me years, but I now agree with her.

 

[Greenbeard]

To the 'a fetus is not a person' argument, I would ask those holding that conviction to show me a single soul who was not first a zygote, then an embryo, then a fetus, etc. Show me how that is not an essential stage of a human life. And then explain how killing it is not ending a human life.

It's not an argument, it's a fact. "Personhood" is not a theological question, nor is it a biological question. It's a legal question, a socially-determined point at which legal protections, rights, and privileges are afforded. And legally a fertilized egg is not a person; attempts to change that have failed.

A constitutional amendment that would have defined a fertilized egg as a person failed on the ballot in Mississippi on Tuesday, dealing the so-called “personhood” movement another blow.

The state votes on the "personhood" amendment, which would designate a fertilized egg as a person.

Mississippi would have become the first state to define a fertilized egg as a person, a measure which was aimed at outlawing abortion in the state but, opponents contended, would have led to all kinds of unintended consequences.

In the end, those concerns won out in a strongly anti-abortion state. The amendment trailed 59 percent to 41 percent with more than half of precincts reporting. The Associated Press has said it will fail.

“Personhood” supporters had tried to pass a similar measure in Colorado in 2008 and 2010, but voters in that state rejected it more than two-to-one both times.